Not sure they had the ability to properly erase the legs in the 80s, but today it should be totally doable.
Swinging with the monkeys in the trees was definitely the worst scene.
And I liked that movie.
You could also look at Puggo Grande, a 16mm transfer. It has a different aspect ratio, with some cropping, and the colors are slightly funny, but it does have dirt!
Just so you know, it's 70mm, not 77mm. The 35mm was what most people saw in theatres in 1977, while the 70mm print was shown in some large theatres. 35mm and 70mm each refer to the size of the film.
TV's Frink said:
Rob said:
timdiggerm said:
So, chances of you restoring matte lines, boxes, etc?
Jesus Christ don't make Harmy answer this again. Also don't be stupid and gay.
It's bad when we are gay?
:-(
Given the Freddie Mercury avatar, I don't know what to think.
Also, I don't remember the last time anyone asked that question, although maybe I asked it recently. If so, I forgot.
Also, if he's putting in things like subtitle jitter, it's not that outlandish.
Yet again, I really recommend you never post twice in a row. Edit your first post if you have more to say.
All I did was use Google.
So, chances of you restoring matte lines, boxes, etc?
No, his son was born in 1993, probably a decade before "Jango" was thought of.
Ultimatejedi04 said:
Finally a SCI yoda for Phantom Menace! It is so much better that the creppy puppet they used in the film. Now to the crap.
You mean CGI? But yes, much better.
Greedo shot first? What is Lucas trying to say? I mean when Han shoots him first of all its a blue bug eyed creature so who care about him.
This is, however, a change that's existed since 1997.
Obviously you can tell that it's not HD, but it looks much better in context than it did as a still image. Looks about as good as we're gonna get. Thanks for all the work, Harmy!
Ultimatejedi04 said:
I of course like everyother hardcore fan bought the blurays and was pissed. Need simple instructions to burn all of the deleted scenes on a septate dvd. I have a OT box set on dvd with all of the theatricals but not many deleted scenes so I would like some help so I can sell the crappy blurays
Several problems
1. It's probably not legal, because you'd be selling your blurays later but keeping the discs
2. You're looking at a two or three step process: Ripping the discs to a computer, and then burning whats on your computer to a disc
3. If you really want to put them on a dvd, not a bluray, you'd have to downgrade the quality from HD to standard-def before burning\
4. Instructions on how to do all these things exist. Google?
Any chance we could get a clip of this latest version, in the context of the scene? That way we'll be comparing its lightness/darkness/quality/etc to the scene, not the GOUT.
Hmm. I prefer Jaitea's latest SE-based version, but this is an improvement.
ray_afraid said:
timdiggerm said:
Spelling and grammare are important.
HA!
...totally did that on purpose, for the irony.
Of course.
Advice: Don't post twice or thrice in a row. Spelling and grammare are important.
Yeah, version 2 is far too dark, and looks like less detail/more splotch in areas. Ex: The top edge of the cockpit windows.
As for that 35mm scan: Oh wow... :(
Yeah, an audio companion to 005's galleries would probably be a good idea. That, plus publicly presentable versions for SaveStarWars.
Lest anyone not understand, here is the 1977/97 change comparison : https://picasaweb.google.com/102542760950977079734/StarWarsSpecialEditionChangesHD#5514976103623090866
The source for 77 is GOUT and the source for 97 is 2004, so colors, black-levels, etc are probably inaccurate everywhere, but you can at least see that, yes, it really is supposed to be pretty dark.
(Side note: When I saw the film at The Senator, I didn't know to look for the bad matte, and I never noticed it)
Although shake is certainly added by the projector, Harmy's corrected for that by stabilizing PuggoGrande to the very-still HD footage, and the subtitles still shook. You're right in saying that the subtitles are burned in, but remember that this burning in process also required running film across sprockets and all that... introducing its own shake. So even if you could run a 35mm print of Star Wars through a projector with absolutely no shake, the subs would still shake, because of how they were made.
Harmy said:
As to the grain and stuff, I think I'll just make an MKV "vintage" version with it.
I like this decision a lot. I may end up preferring it; who knows.
The grain, from what I can barely tell, seems nice. The dirt I could do without, but I wouldn't object either.
Wow man. That's... that's really good. You may be setting a new standard for fan-scans.
You should be aware that Frink is often very silly.
But he's serious when he says that a lot of people think Fett in ROTJ is too much Fett. At the very least, Fett in ROTJ is not very awesome.
...
Thankfully he wears a helmet, so hypothetically a fan edit crew could film a better death for him?
Sigh.
Right, so, TPM.
Atlantis said:
No professional restoration job would actually add elements such as dirt and hairs though, that's the opposite of preserving the best possible image.
Or shaky subtitles. I agree.
Ah, but shaky subtitles are not an element added by poor projection or accidents. They're inherent in making something with analog film and compositing. In fact, they fall into the same realm as matte-lines: Part of the original film.